Federal infrastructure minister Dominic LeBlanc has responded to a threat from premiers Blaine Higgs and Tim Houston, who have said they will take the federal government to court over its refusal to fund 100% of the Chignecto Isthmus protection project.
In a letter on July 4, Higgs asserted that the Constitution Act of 1867 outlines the responsibility of the federal government to “maintain and secure transportation links between provinces.” Previously, Higgs compared the Isthmus project to the Confederation Bridge, which was funded by the federal government in the 1990’s.
A spokesperson for LeBlanc says the constitutional argument is “inaccurate”, and a political science professor from Mount Allison agrees.
Here’s the full statement from LeBlanc’s spokesperson, Jean-Sébastien Comeau:
“Our position is and has always been clear – the protection of the Chignecto Isthmus is a shared responsibility between the Government of Canada, the Government of New Brunswick and the Government of Nova Scotia. It is inaccurate to pretend that the Government of Canada has a constitutional responsibility to maintain the provincially-owned highway that runs through the Isthmus, or to compare this situation to an article of Confederation negotiated by some other Province at the time they joined Canada. It is unfortunate that Premier Higgs is threatening a legal battle which would be a waste of time and public funds. Such a move does nothing to protect communities and critical supply lines along the Isthmus. We urge the provinces to apply for federal funding by July 19, 2023, so we can protect the Isthmus for future generations.”
Mt A professor Mario Levesque says that there’s a clear federal interest in maintaining the Isthmus, but agrees that the premiers don’t have a constitutional leg to stand on with their threat of court action.
“There is no constitutional issue here,” says Levesque. “The point of the Confederation Bridge was that it was in the terms of union of PEI. This was one of the reasons that lured PEI to join the rest of Canada… the fact that they had to have a reliable, steady connection to the mainland.”
“We don’t have that kind of thing in the terms of union for New Brunswick or Nova Scotia at all,” says Levesque. “So there’s no constitutional issue that Higgs or Houston has. That’s just hot air on their part.”
Levesque says the argument from the two Progressive Conservative premiers is designed to play politics, “to try to make it difficult on Dominic LeBlanc and Justin Trudeau, the federal Liberals, so they can gain some points for [Conservative leader] Pierre Poilievre.”
But he says there’s very little chance that a federal Conservative government would ever consider paying more than 50% towards the project. “Would [Poilievre] go and throw that kind of money at Atlantic Canada? No. His support base is Western Canada, and whatever he can cobble together in rural Ontario.”
“If it was a Conservative federal government, they’re not going to get a better deal than half the cost to be paid upfront,” says Levesque.
The Higgs letter also mentions a hypothetical two-thirds federal funding scenario, but that is something the federal minister has never mentioned, and Comeau did not respond when asked directly about it.
LeBlanc has repeatedly committed to 50% funding of the project, and has estimated that at roughly $200 million. The engineers’ report commissioned in 2019 estimated costs for three options ranging from $190 million to $300 million, but those figures are now out of date.
Levesque says what Higgs is probably trying to do is plan for the likely scenario that the project runs over budget, and have the federal government cover a share of the overrun. But that’s not typically how infrastructure funding works in Canada, says Levesque.
“It’s up to the provinces to make sure that they go on budget and make it work,” says Levesque. In this case, Higgs and Houston “want a blank cheque for any amount, and the federal government will never sign on to that.”
“Higgs and Houston can take it to the court,” says Levesque, “but I tell you, they’re wasting good money after bad. They’re just going to drag this out and lose, and then who knows what’s on the table afterwards?”
